Background and Aims:The incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma(ICC)has been increasing in recent years.Due to its insidious onset and low rate of early diagnosis,radical resection remains the only potential curative treatment.Lymph node metastasis is a major adverse prognostic factor in ICC,but the scope and therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy remain controversial.Previous studies suggest that patients with central ICC may derive greater survival benefit from lymphadenectomy than those with peripheral ICC.Preoperative assessment of lymph node status mainly relies on imaging,but its accuracy is limited.This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of lymphadenectomy in ICC patients at different anatomical sites to inform surgical decision-making.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on 220 ICC patients who underwent radical resection at the 904th Hospital of the Joint Logistic Support Force of the PLA from May 2016 to May 2021.The cohort included 126 males and 94 females,with a mean age of(56.76±13.15)years.Patients were categorized into peripheral ICC(n=144)and central ICC(n=76)groups.Clinical characteristics,albumin-bilirubin(ALBI)grade,preoperative risk of lymph node metastasis,number of lymph nodes dissected,lymph node metastasis status,and postoperative survival outcomes were compared.Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the prognostic value of the number of lymph nodes dissected under different risk stratifications.Results:Significant differences were observed between peripheral and central ICC in ALBI grade(x2=9.952,P=0.002),preoperative lymph node metastasis risk(x2=6.166,P=0.014),number of lymph nodes dissected(x2=4.167,P=0.042),and lymph node metastasis rate(x2=7.331,P=0.007).The 3-year overall survival(OS)rate was higher in peripheral ICC(31.94％)than in central ICC(15.79％)(x2=13.890,P＜0.001).Among central ICC patients,those with ≥6 lymph nodes dissected had better 3-year OS than those with＜6(16.89％vs.13.04％,x2=3.894,P=0.048).In the high-risk subgroup of central ICC,≥6 lymph nodes dissected was also associated with improved 3-year OS compared with＜6(15.62％vs.11.11％,x2=3.962,P=0.047).In contrast,the number of lymph node dissections had no significant prognostic impact in peripheral ICC or in patients classified as low risk.Conclusion:Patients with peripheral ICC had a better prognosis than those with central ICC.Adequate lymphadenectomy(≥6 nodes)improved survival and enhanced staging accuracy in central ICC patients at high risk of lymph node metastasis,highlighting the importance of preoperative risk assessment for optimizing surgical strategies.

Background and Aims:Radical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma(ICC),yet the high recurrence rate results in poor prognosis.In recent years,"textbook outcome"(TO)has been proposed as a comprehensive quality metric,but its association with prognosis remains unclear.This study aimed to analyze the risk factors influencing the achievement of TO after radical resection of ICC and to explore the relationship between TO and survival.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 180 ICC patients who underwent radical resection at the 904th Hospital of the Joint Logistic Support Force of the PLA between February 2018 and February 2023.Univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with TO,and survival analysis was carried out using the Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test.Results:Of the 180 patients,66 achieved TO.Multivariate Logistic regression analysis indicated that preoperative total bilirubin＞22 μmol/L,preoperative CA19-9＞35 U/mL,maximum tumor diameter＞5 cm,poor tumor differentiation,microvascular invasion(MVI),and lymph node metastasis were independent risk factors for failing to achieve TO(all P＜0.05).Survival analysis demonstrated that patients who achieved TO had a significantly longer median survival compared with those who did not(36 months vs.16 months,P＜0.001).Conclusion:Preoperative total bilirubin＞22 μmol/L,preoperative CA19-9＞35 U/mL,maximum tumor diameter＞5 cm,poor tumor differentiation,MVI,and lymph node metastasis are independent risk factors for not achieving TO after radical resection of ICC.Patients who achieved TO exhibited markedly longer survival,suggesting that TO not only reflects perioperative treatment quality but also serves as an important prognostic indicator.Greater attention to these risk factors and optimization of perioperative management may improve the likelihood of achieving TO and enhance long-term outcomes.

ObjectiveTo investigate the impacts of three types of acupuncture timing factors， including intervention initiation time， needle retention duration， and treatment intervals， on the treatment efficacy of ischemic stroke （IS） and provide evidence-based support for optimizing acupuncture timing strategies. MethodsA systematic search was conducted in both Chinese and English databases， including CNKI， Wanfang Data， VIP， CBM， PubMed， Web of Science， Cochrane Library， and Embase. The randomized controlled trials involving multiple acupuncture intervention time groups were included to reduce inter-study heterogeneity. A network meta-analysis model was constructed to compare the effects of different intervention initiation time， needle retention duration， and treatment intervals on primary IS outcomes， including total clinical response rate， neurological and limb function scores， quality of life score， and hemorheological parameters. Adverse events were also assessed. ResultsA total of 32 studies were included. The results showed that early acupuncture intervention （1-3 days and 4-7 days after onset） outperformed late intervention （>14 days） in terms of response rate， neurological function improvement， and quality of life （P<0.05， P<0.01）. Extending needle retention time to 40-60 min was associated with improved response rates and hemorheological parameters （P<0.01）. No significant differences were observed among different treatment intervals. The evidence of key outcomes showed high overall certainty， with low heterogeneity and inconsistency. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessments indicated the stability of the main results and a low risk of publication bias. No significant adverse reaction was reported. ConclusionDifferent timing factors significantly influence the efficacy of acupuncture treatment for IS. Early intervention and appropriately extended needle retention time result in better clinical outcomes， while treatment interval has no significant effect on efficacy. The inclusion of studies with multiple acupuncture timing groups helps control methodological heterogeneity and enhances the robustness of the analysis， providing evidence-based guidance for optimizing acupuncture timing strategies in IS management.

Background and Aims:The incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma(ICC)has been increasing in recent years.Due to its insidious onset and low rate of early diagnosis,radical resection remains the only potential curative treatment.Lymph node metastasis is a major adverse prognostic factor in ICC,but the scope and therapeutic value of lymphadenectomy remain controversial.Previous studies suggest that patients with central ICC may derive greater survival benefit from lymphadenectomy than those with peripheral ICC.Preoperative assessment of lymph node status mainly relies on imaging,but its accuracy is limited.This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of lymphadenectomy in ICC patients at different anatomical sites to inform surgical decision-making.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on 220 ICC patients who underwent radical resection at the 904th Hospital of the Joint Logistic Support Force of the PLA from May 2016 to May 2021.The cohort included 126 males and 94 females,with a mean age of(56.76±13.15)years.Patients were categorized into peripheral ICC(n=144)and central ICC(n=76)groups.Clinical characteristics,albumin-bilirubin(ALBI)grade,preoperative risk of lymph node metastasis,number of lymph nodes dissected,lymph node metastasis status,and postoperative survival outcomes were compared.Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the prognostic value of the number of lymph nodes dissected under different risk stratifications.Results:Significant differences were observed between peripheral and central ICC in ALBI grade(x2=9.952,P=0.002),preoperative lymph node metastasis risk(x2=6.166,P=0.014),number of lymph nodes dissected(x2=4.167,P=0.042),and lymph node metastasis rate(x2=7.331,P=0.007).The 3-year overall survival(OS)rate was higher in peripheral ICC(31.94％)than in central ICC(15.79％)(x2=13.890,P＜0.001).Among central ICC patients,those with ≥6 lymph nodes dissected had better 3-year OS than those with＜6(16.89％vs.13.04％,x2=3.894,P=0.048).In the high-risk subgroup of central ICC,≥6 lymph nodes dissected was also associated with improved 3-year OS compared with＜6(15.62％vs.11.11％,x2=3.962,P=0.047).In contrast,the number of lymph node dissections had no significant prognostic impact in peripheral ICC or in patients classified as low risk.Conclusion:Patients with peripheral ICC had a better prognosis than those with central ICC.Adequate lymphadenectomy(≥6 nodes)improved survival and enhanced staging accuracy in central ICC patients at high risk of lymph node metastasis,highlighting the importance of preoperative risk assessment for optimizing surgical strategies.

Background and Aims:Radical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma(ICC),yet the high recurrence rate results in poor prognosis.In recent years,"textbook outcome"(TO)has been proposed as a comprehensive quality metric,but its association with prognosis remains unclear.This study aimed to analyze the risk factors influencing the achievement of TO after radical resection of ICC and to explore the relationship between TO and survival.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 180 ICC patients who underwent radical resection at the 904th Hospital of the Joint Logistic Support Force of the PLA between February 2018 and February 2023.Univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with TO,and survival analysis was carried out using the Kaplan-Meier method and Log-rank test.Results:Of the 180 patients,66 achieved TO.Multivariate Logistic regression analysis indicated that preoperative total bilirubin＞22 μmol/L,preoperative CA19-9＞35 U/mL,maximum tumor diameter＞5 cm,poor tumor differentiation,microvascular invasion(MVI),and lymph node metastasis were independent risk factors for failing to achieve TO(all P＜0.05).Survival analysis demonstrated that patients who achieved TO had a significantly longer median survival compared with those who did not(36 months vs.16 months,P＜0.001).Conclusion:Preoperative total bilirubin＞22 μmol/L,preoperative CA19-9＞35 U/mL,maximum tumor diameter＞5 cm,poor tumor differentiation,MVI,and lymph node metastasis are independent risk factors for not achieving TO after radical resection of ICC.Patients who achieved TO exhibited markedly longer survival,suggesting that TO not only reflects perioperative treatment quality but also serves as an important prognostic indicator.Greater attention to these risk factors and optimization of perioperative management may improve the likelihood of achieving TO and enhance long-term outcomes.

This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively compare 34 global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） health systems guidance documents （HSGs） and 6 World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs. The comparison involved topic， participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability， with the aim of exploring the characteristics of emergency HSGs. The results showed that the emergency HSGs had an overall average score of 49%， with topic having the highest score， recommendations having the second highest score， and participants having the lowest score. The standard HSGs had an overall average score of 79%， with high scores in all items. The emergency HSGs had lower scores in participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability than the standard HSGs （P<0.001）， while the COVID-19 emergency HSGs developed by the WHO had higher score in topic than the standard HSGs （P<0.05）. Compared with those released by countries， the COVID-19 emergency HSG developed by the WHO showed superiority in all items and overall scores （P=0.000 2）. This indicates that emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， place equal emphasis on topic and recommendations as standard HSGs but have low requirements in terms of expert participation， evidence support， and comprehensive consideration in the time- and resource-limited context. They have the characteristics of prominent topics， clear purposes， orientation to demand， keeping up with the latest evidence， flexible adjustment， and timeliness， emphasizing immediate implementation effects， weakening long-term effects， and focusing on comprehensive benefits. Additionally， developers， types， and report completeness are important influencing factors.

The scientific rigor and efficacy of methodologies employed in drafting emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs） are paramount in guaranteeing the quality， reliability， and applicability of HSGs. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation- Health Systems （AGREE-HS）， we demonstratively assessed both global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs to uncover the core attributes of methods employed in the development of emergency HSGs. Our evaluation findings revealed that across the five assessment items of AGREE-HS， methods in the 34 emergency HSGs evaluated ranked third， trailing behind topic and recommendations. Notably， criterion 2 （the best available and most contextually relevant evidence is considered） received the highest score， whereas criterion 5 （evidence of cost and cost-effectiveness of the potential options is described） scored the lowest. Compared with the WHO standard HSGs， the COVID-19 emergency HSGs exhibited low scores in methods （P<0.05）， which was reflected in nine criteria （P<0.05）， especially in criteria 1 （systematic and transparent methods are used to identify and review the evidence） and 9 （systematic and transparent methods are used to agree upon the final recommendations）. Among the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， that developed by the WHO achieved higher scores in eight out of all nine criteria， excluding criterion 8 （P<0.05）. The clinically relevant emergency HSGs had higher scores in the criteria 3 （the evidence base is current） and 8 （the rationale behind the recommendations is clear） than other types of emergency HSGs. Collectively， the methodology for developing emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， underscores evidence orientation and integrates expert consensus. It is characterized by adaptable evidence synthesis strategies， streamlined evidence review protocols， and contextual relevance， all of which are influenced by external， internal， and implementation-specific factors.

The formulation method of emergency health systems guidance （HSG） is crucial， directly impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of responses in emergencies. A scientifically sound， systematic， and easily executable guidance document can assist health institutions at all levels in quickly coordinating resources， standardizing emergency response processes， and safeguarding public health. This study employed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to analyze the characteristics of participants in developing emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included in this study， the item participants received the lowest score. Within this item， criterion 1 （diversity of development group） scored the highest （3.13±1.55）， while criterion 5 （prevention of funding agency influence） scored the lowest （1.21±0.47）. There were differences （P<0.05） in measures taken to mitigate funding agency influence between the six standard HSGs developed by the World Health Organization （WHO） and the four emergency HSGs. Additionally， differences （P<0.05） existed in the development group members， background， conflicts of interest， and preventive measures between the six WHO standard HSGs and the 34 emergency HSGs， as well as between the HSGs developed by the WHO and those developed by countries. The participants in developing emergency HSGs were influenced by various factors， including limited time for guideline development， modes of participation， scarce evidence， and uncertainties in expected outcomes. There is a need to downplay extensive requirements concerning the composition of group members， institutional diversity， and conflicts of interest， emphasizing the roles of key participants like government officials and professionals who can provide rapid， practical guidance in emergency situations.

Guidance implementation acts as a bridge between theory and practice，enabling the rapid expansion of their impact and application. This study demonstratively evaluated emergency health systems guidance documents （HSG），represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG，based on the item implementability of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS），aiming to explore the characteristics of implementability in emergency HSG. The evaluation results indicated that the COVID-19 emergency HSG had a low mean score in implementability，which ranked just above the item participants. Criterion 2 （costs and resource considerations for implementing the recommendations） received the highest mean score of 4.29，while criterion 9 （systematic evaluation of implementation） received the lowest mean score of 1.34. The emergency HSG formulated by the World Health Organization（WHO） and those formulated by various countries showed no difference （P=0.114） in criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） but had differences （P<0.05） regarding the average item scores and the scores of the remaining criteria. The WHO standard HSG had high overall scores and had differences （P<0.05） in both the mean item scores and the scores of the nine criteria when compared with the emergency HSG. The global/national HSG showed differences in scores of criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） compared with the both clinically relevant HSG and material support HSG （P<0.05）. Emergency HSG prioritized considerations of implementation costs，resources，and flexibility in terms of implementability，while de-emphasizing aspects such as stakeholder opinions，dissemination strategies，and evaluation of HSG. This may be attributed to the context in which emergency HSG are formulated，given the inherent flexibility and variability of emergency health events. The developers should comprehensively consider the needs and characteristics related to the implementability of emergency HSG during the formulation process.

Objective:To study and compare the impact of lymph node metastasis and dissection on the prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) patients at different anatomical locations, as well as the effect on prognosis.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 150 ICC patients who underwent radical surgical resection at the 904th Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from September 2017 to September 2020. Among them, 86 were males and 64 were females, with the age of (56.2±12.9) years. Differences in albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, preoperative lymph node metastasis risk, number of lymph nodes dissected, lymph node metastasis, and postoperative survival between peripheral and central ICC patients were compared to analyze the impact of lymph node dissection on the prognosis of ICC patients at different locations.Results:There were statistically significant differences in ALBI grade, preoperative lymph node metastasis risk, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and lymph node metastasis between 98 cases of peripheral ICC and 52 cases of central ICC (all P<0.05). The 3-year overall survival rates for peripheral and central ICC patients were 30.6% and 15.4%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=8.46, P=0.004). Among central ICC patients, the 3-year overall survival rates for those with ≥6 lymph nodes dissected and <6 lymph nodes dissected were 16.7% and 12.5%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=3.96, P=0.046). In the high-risk central ICC patients with preoperative lymph node metastasis, the 3-year overall survival rate of ≥6 lymph nodes dissection ( n=22) and <6 lymph nodes dissection ( n=12) were 13.6% and 8.3%, respectively, with statistical significance ( χ2=5.55, P=0.019). Conclusions:The prognosis of peripheral ICC patients is better than that of central ICC patients. For central ICC patients with a high preoperative lymph node metastasis risk, adequate lymph node dissection can lead to a better prognosis.